when parents start helping their kids out to this degree, it masks a wider problem. I guess when we bought our house, the only way we managed to get the final chunk we needed was because the wife's gran died and left us £4000 so we benefited from a family handout ourselves, but if this is going to increasingly become the only way people can get on the ladder, then that ladder is going to get even more difficult to take a first step on.

Or in fact, a house anywhere. It's one of the reasons I've sacked the whole business off, it's just ridiculous and at the moment it seems the only attitude you can take is 'if you can't beat them, join them'.

the number of first time buyers has gone down a lot in the last five years (as has the % of of owner/occupier homes generally), which would likely raise the proportion within FTB who do get help from the Bank of Mater & Pater.

My group of friends are all from what DiS would call 'privileged' backgrounds, degree educated or above, and mostly earning well above the average wage (£55k club). A few of them have bought houses but all of them relied on family assistance.

It makes you think that if these people can't do it, how the fuck is anyone meant to?! I guess the answers are a) leave London and buy somewhere else, or b) stop thinking that buying a house is a life must.

But the market is totally fucked. People are buying places as they're convinced it'll earn them more money in the long run than sticking it in a bank. But for that to be the case, they either need to cover their mortgages by charging stupidly high rent or else rely on someone else buying it off them at an inflated price in the years to come. And given that something crazy like 65% of property being sold in London right now is by Far East investors, there may never be a bunch of people after them with that sort of cash.

The onus at the moment seems to be on our generation 'getting over' being home owners.
So we shoudln't aspire to won but a few wealthy people can own a massive portfolio of properties and rent them out.

The main reason that owning is seen as the most desireable option is because the alternative, renting, is so so shit in comparison in this country, with the least tenant-friendly legislation in western europe.

even now I think the (can't remember the stats) ratio of owners to renters is mental here compared with everywhere else. It's not too outlandish to imagine that there'll be a cultural shift away from ownership in the current climate.

but until we have more equitable legislation, until we've actually built enough properties to house everyone, until rents come down to a level that makes them lower than a mortgage, and until buy-to-let and Rackman-esque landlords are run out of town (don't forget that management companies and co-operatives actually own most of the rented property in Europe), then this shift will always be undesirable, and will always perpetuate the accelerated transfer of wealth and power from those at the bottom to those at the top.

But assuming net immigration continues to rise year on year, house building will always be fighting a losing battle and playing catch-up. So I don't believe that "building enough properties" is ever truly possible.

How many properties and houses stand empty, currently owned but not occupied? It's more than enough to absorb net immigration.

You do touch on an interesting point and that is that everyone comes to London because it's the best, maybe only, place where people can get jobs. Any sensible government would try to reverse that situation, but just about every policy of this government ingrains it.

The market and private interest within the housing market, particularly the rentals market, has caused a rotten current predicament and you know it. Immigration is so far down the list of contributory factors to this it's facile in the extreme to bring it up.

High prices are the result of it being a seller's market - more people wanting properties than there are properties available.

The answer to balance this out is to build more houses. But people can (and do) move to the UK quicker than you can build the houses, so the problem is never going to go away until you either build houses at a faster rate than population growth - difficult - or lower the number of people in the country (or at least slow the pace increase) - much easier.

I'm just saying it's so far down the list of contributory factors to the current predicament, it's a waste of time talking about it in lieu of the several other elephants in the room, so to speak.

Clearly if there is positive net immigration, this puts pressure on the housing market. Only a fool would deny that. The pressure it does put on there, though, seems relatively innocuous compared to the various other factors discussed in this here thread.

population level is a factor in this, but then so are things like social mobility, changing demographics, rates of divorce etc.

immigration (and, let's face it, when this is brought up it means black/brown/yellow/eastern european folk more than anything else) is obviously in some way a contributing factor, but not a great one. such working migrants (GENERALISING a tad but you know) tend to live in crowded housing and tend to take the worst quality stock available. they're not forming a great number of new households.

When people on above average salaries can't afford to even get on the property ladder without parental assistance or (the crazy) help to buy scheme then it's clear that the market is massively fucked.

The government is massively interfering in the market as it is invested in maintaing the inflated house-prices that sit on banks balance sheets. By keeping interest rates at near-zero, and creating another bubble through the introduction of the help to buy scheme you minimise the potential for mortgage defaults (that would provide some correction to the market)and try to ward-off another economic collapse.

Ultimately a correction has to take place (except for perhaps London where the belief that property can't fall is self-perpetuating). If I could afford a mortgage right now I don't think I'd take it, I'm almost positive that negative equity for millions is right around the corner. It's just a question of for how long the government can stave it off with QE and other economic policies.

and my mam's told me that she'll give me some cash for the solicitor's fees and stuff, not sure what that'll come to. I know a guy who drives about in a really expensive car his parents bought and stuff - he's in his late 20s and has a full-time job. That seems so strange to me.

I've always had the attitude that if I have enough money to be self sufficient (where I don't HAVE to ask my parents for money) then I will be, if that means a smaller flat and no car etc then that's fine.

when parents leave houses to their kids. maybe in years gone by, sure, but nowdays, properly unecessary. surely anyone with a spine would rather their parents sold up and enjoyed their pension properly?

fair play if yours are in a financial position to do both, i guess (nope, fuck you).

but it's taken me taking on a shedload of freelance work over the course of several years to get the bunse together. Lot of weekends lost. My old dear's parents did once offer to give some money, which I refused. Taken 5 years to get together what they would have given us in a day. In the cold light of day I don't know that it was actually a smart decision frankly, even if it results in a sprinkling of bonus indie points.

all definitely had help, including one who was already living in a place his parents bought him outright, who then sold that and used a six figure inheritance from his grandmother to buy an even bigger place. They're like my best friends, but they don't have make me sick.

my parents were teachers in their mid-20s when they first bought a place. My mum was on £2k pa.

Nothing much has changed, but nowadays they live in a house that's probably 'worth' ~£500k (bought for about £100k) and my Dad's pension 'earns' him almost three times as much as my actual wage. The whole thing's a joke.

is in a massively advantageous position economically compared to those who bought after - other prices have gone up, but if you bought then, your children are set to inherit a huge, life-changing level of equity.

We've paid back what we need to. Part of the reason was that mortgage lending was so strict it wasn't possible to get a 10% deposit mortgage with my wife 'only' having permanent leave to remain, so we needed to scrape the extra 5% together.

Still, it's rubbish. I never particularly wanted to own property and if successive governments had done enough to make sure renters had the choices to keep rents down I might never have bothered. Right now our mortgage is way cheaper than others would pay to rent. Again, that's fucking crazy.

Could never have afforded our deposit if it weren't for the inheritance left to my girlfriend by her dad. Even then we needed additional help from my mum and step dad. I have no idea how people do it without help, hats off to them ...

Who the flip, at first house buying age, can come up with tens of thousands of quid as a deposit? Well done to the 7 out of 10 that managed it I say.

Also, a lot of people don't get a direct handout, but as people have mentioned above, get some cash when a relative dies or something. Is basically the same thing.

However, I still don't think in this context £17k is much at all. Bear in mind that our parents generation bought houses dirt cheap and they rocketed in value. In the meantime they probably paid off their mortgages. When those are your circumstances, it really isn't hard to lay your hands on that sort of a sum to help your kids get on the ladder.

It's our kids I worry about, as we will all struggle to make huge sums in that way again, and the money from our parents is slowly geting absorbed into our lives, and not currently getting replaced, or built on.

if you can get a 90% mortgage (or even 95%) - I mean you could get a nice flat in a decent enough area near Glasgow for <100k. It's not going to be luxury or anything, but it's certainly doable on an average income without parental help.

Probably most of the 7 out of 10 come from people buying in cheaper areas.

really finding it quite hard to believe that most of the London-based DiSers who get all superior about being properly independent in the smoke have mortgages solely because they were given huge bundles of cash by their parents.

but money invested in property is definitely an investment. The fact that you needed that help or that you used that help to make life a bit easier isn't quite the same as if you were living at home, bumming meals of your parents.

That said, I don't really see there's anything wrong with living at home. Depends on the circumstances and your attitude to your parents, I suppose.

More parents should make an effort to teach their kids the importance of putting money aside, really. I've never been able to do it. Not disciplined at all. Splodge around half of my money on food, beer and going out, and always have. Could've easily saved the deposit for a flat or house had i just put a little away each week/month over the years.

Got a mate who was taught to do stuff like that right from his first part-time job. He's fucking loaded, because he respects money. If i've got £100 in my pocket, i'll more than likely spend it in the pub or at the supermarket. Without any hardship whatsoever could've saved, maybe 25% of anything i've ever been paid. Silly, really.

Plus with a lower deposit to loan ratio, I'd have been paying a lot more on mortgage payments.
My gf and I are hoping to buy next year, after selling my house hopefully we'll be in a very strong position, and able to afford a nice 4 bed family home we can stay in for years.

Really glad I don't live in London, prices are properly mad there, and the rental market seems horrific.

More than £17k :O. Technically they've bought an equity share in the property so they can get it back at some point if they wish.

Even with their help, still had to save quite a bit cash - stamp duty, fees and surveys etc. covered more than £10k.

A vicious circle, since it wouldn't have been possible without parental support, but at the same time, interest rates are so low that mortgages today are much more affordable than rent, so now we're on the ladder we are in a much better position to save than our renting peers..

Was take a loan from his family but at a lower rate than his bank offered. So he paid his Dad back at interest of 1.5% meaning he saved loads on what the bank offered, and his Dad earned more savings than he could have done elsewhere.

But mostly, the bank is lending you the X% of the market value of the place you are buying, at a low interest rate relative to another type of loan because it's secured on the house. If you ask for another £10k on top this would affect your loan to value ratio, therefore most banks would reduce the amount they would lend to you proportionately.

To be tbh, anyone who buys property in London is part of the problem, parental deposit or not. And their opinion on most things financial is largely void in my eyes, as they are complicit in the support a broken and debilitating system.

Nice to see a simmering level of intergenerational rage, though - something worth nurturing.

You're on the ladder
You have a smaller deposit and mortgage than you'd need if you were buying 100%
Doable as a single person with one income

Cons:
Can be difficult to sell on, especially if you 'staircase' to owning 60%, for example, as you have to sell the share you own and few people want to buy 60/75% of a flat.
Some HAs are better than others - some won't let you it out (for example if you couldn't sell it but had to move to work)
You're paying mortgage + rent so can still be very expensive for one person.

That report starts off really well, identifying the problems and the probable consequences of them , especially given that it's a right-wing think tank, but then it's suggested solutions are so ineffectual and mealy-mouthed that they will perpetuate the situation that we have and might as well have not bothered.

It hits the nail on the head on the problems - a lot of good data etc and then...a giant shrug.

They don't have answers is the problem. The richest generation in the history of existence has gotten used to watching its 'worth' rise on the back of house price increases and they're not about to vote for anything that might threaten that.

The housing market adds to GDP of course, but it's bit of a misnomer, as any 'value' is tied up in the book value of the property, not really circulating through the economy. Britain's propensity to drive property inflation with excess capital (which really started strongly under Thatcher with tax breaks off the back of North Sea Oil)is pretty depressing, really. No-one benefits but speculators.

from increases in property if you sell it outright. If you move - even with upsizing - you're locked into the same inflated market and any gains you've made from price inflation over what you've paid is purely theoretical.

As most people need somewhere to live, average house prices that are eight times average salaries are eminently undesirable for anyone but short-term speculators or people who were in at the bottom. Sounds kind of like a ponzi scheme doesn't it?

the one that the boomers have their eyes on. That equity goes a long way. And they're cashing in now so are realising their gains.

Who knows where the height of the market is? but it can't be *that* far off. If people are priced out of entry what's going to fuel further rises?

Unless we see some dramatic above-inflation wage increases (unlikely) the housing - and by extension banking - crisis has a way to run yet. In parts of the country we're still well-below 2008 price levels and the full effect of the crash was only stemmed by some pretty dramatic stimulus from the governement and Bank of England.

Most recently in city centre two-bed two-bath "luxury" flats, a lot of which are still clogging up local marketplaces, and without revenue from selling those developers can't fund further schemes that might actually sell in the current climate.

17% received this exclusively in the form of a gift and 11% received assistance in the form of a loan. In 2% of the cases it was a combination of the two.

The mean value of the gift received by those who bought their home with a mortgage (as opposed to buying outright) was approximately £18,000 (median £10,000).

In addition, further financial assistance was provided to the much smaller group of first-time buyers who bought their homes outright. The average value of this assistance is much greater than that provided towards a deposit, but the small number of respondents like this in the survey sample is too small to generate meaningful estimates.

This whole 'WE DON'T WANT IT TO BE OUT OF CONTROL LIKE THE MAD BAD DAYS OF 5 YEARS AGO' line.

Prices in London are several 10s (and in some cases 100s) of 1000s more than they were back then and outside of pretty desolate, run down areas in the middle of nowhere, most housing is back to the price it was back then now.

Sometimes I'm so terrified of the way rents are going up that I think trying to buy a place is the only sensible idea. Then other times I'm so terrified of a potential housing crash I think anyone sensible would avoid buying like the plague. Which doomsayers to believe? WHICH??

I guess it's only buy-to-let knobheads who stand to really lose out in a crash, and maybe those who are buying to live in but choose to purchase based on an area's speculation potential as the main factor. If you buy based purely on a having a place you want to live in you should come out ahead whatever happens

In London, it's never going to be a problem because if there's a crash and loads of houses in, say, Dalston have £000's knocked off their value, there's more than enough people desperate to move there who will snap those properties up until market parity is restored.

Plus I intend to own any property I buy for the entire duration of the mortgage so... doubt negative equity will be too much of an issue for me.

Not sure what value the article brings to the debate other than a familialy privileged journalist saying `Oh I've been lucky here - but I'm a better person for it so... oh well!`. Well-intentioned maybe, but still smug...

There ARE still affordable places to live in London. It's just that people don't want to live in them. I wanted to live in Islington, but opted for Tottenham because I couldn't afford it. You can't afford Walthamstow now?? Tough shit. Live somewhere you can afford.

I noticed as well while we were looking that actually buying an ok place in London isn't *that* difficult - it's just you just have to be less fussy about the area. There are some really nice places in, just to name one, the area around Maryland station where no-one really wants to live. But the houses are good and it's only 20 mins into central London. No-one wants them though.

But if loads of like minded people moved there, and someone decided to open an artisan coffee shop or whatever, then we'll be chatting about Maryland instead of Walthamstow on here in 5 years time.

My girlfriend was 100% against moving to our house off White Hart Lane. The area was pretty grim – we had no decent pubs, one restaurant, loads of oddballs wandering around – but you can just hop on a bus or tube for an evening out. It's not really that big a deal to me, but she never really liked it. But it was affordable, the house was great, and we stuck it out til we could afford to move somewhere a bit nicer*.

It's an old trick. Sell a huge number of flats to people by saying how great the facilities are, pub, shops etc.

Happened in the old block my previous office was in in Chelsea. After the last flat was sold, the developer's only connection back to the site was maintaining the restaurants / bars and the maintenance costs. They put the rents up so much on the former that the pub, restaurant and M&S were all forced to close and they sold it off as one large final flat. They sold the contracts to the latter off too, meaning that the service charges went through the roof. So the nearest pub and shop were suddenly a mile away and the area had no social heart.

Essentially most of these developers are just creating huge versions of stupidly expensive council estates of the future. The stretch from Fulham to Battersea when finished will be HORRIBLE.

Was a developer selling off loads of flats at huge prices due to their green credentials and energy ratings. But to connect the boilers that did all this cost loads so instead, they just bought some old school ones cheap, shoved them in and then left. Now the basement is full of these high tech super smart boilers but no one is using them.

A few of the residents know and have had them set up themselves since but as the developer is shot of the place, they're not under any obligation to finish it off properly. Sounded very dodgy to me though and like the kind of thing you could pursue legally.

If you're angsty enough to believe that you absolutely /have/ to live in London - the right place in the country, nay, the ONLY place in the country (I couldn't possibly find a job elsewhere!) - then it's only natural that the same people would freak their previous little selves out into an early grave over exactly which part of that city they live in.

...the amount of folk who are buying houses with the expectation that they are to rise in value. It's almost as if it's seen as an indestructable right these days that when you buy a house it MUST go up in value. A worrying shift.

I was talking to a mate about my plans for buying a cheap flat and doing it up next year. His first reaction? `Yeah but you're probably not going to get the capital appreciation in 5 years that'll cover the cost of you renovating it so, what's the point?`. It was as if he genuinely couldn't understand the idea of buying a flat in London and actually wanting to do it up and LIVE in it for a long period of time.

This is the more problematic attitude for me. Young parentally-funded folk hoovering up property as a get-rich-quick scheme. Makes me weep inside.

(as your friend demonstrates, by suggesting that it's not going to happen).

However, it is only fairly recently that people have started seeing it as an end in itself, or as a consideration they'd place above finding somewhere to live. This is because of a number of factors, not least the running down of the state pension, the con of private pensions, the closure of final salary work pensions, the low savings rates, the increasing inequality in the country and the reduced social mobility of the country, as they all contribute to the idea, and then reality, of property being thenonly way to securely provide for oneself in retirement or during times of hardship.

But it's the short-termist aspect of it that's the most worrying. You can invest in a single property for life as a way to soften the blow of all of the things you rightfully mention, not just GRAB GRAB GRAB capital appreciation and charge `up the ladder`.

have any experience of working in the same job for more than 5 years. People don't have jobs for life these days, and are expected to move to where the work is. It's only natural that they'd want to be able to cover the costs involved in moving withing those kind of time periods, plus it also introduces that idea that people live in the same house for 5-10 years rather than the full term of the mortgage, which used to be pretty common.

But mainly picked this because my mum still lives round here (co-op flat, hence why she can afford to).

Personally I don't really have a problem with Zone 4+. Obviously getting home is a bit annoying. It's true to say that once you get towards a place like Walthamstow you're not maybe as 'in' London as you might like.

I just mean it's got quite a central community feel, something Holloway doesn't (no matter how much it fucking wishes it did). Here you can get to the West End quickly enough that it can practically be a local shopping trip. When I lived in Golder's Green you definitely felt more removed.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing particularly, just that there is a point at which you feel more like you're in a suburb rather than part of the metrop.

And yes, we have a mortgage (I think we now own about 25% of that) but because we were happy to buy ex-local authority and Archway was more of a dump three years ago, we managed to get somewhere. The lack of stamp duty under £250K for first timers helped a LOT as that alone would probably have killed most of our buffer for buying things like a fridge-freezer.

Actually that and The Swimmer are surprising pearls in the otherwise dreary world of Holloway. Not that I dislike it because I'm not one of those people who hates on where I grew up. I just think it's not got a great deal of character.

Part of that is that it's easier to get into town (not just from one tube station - there are three lines in easy walking distance) but also because it's definitely part of the London nexus. Unlike Camden, it doesn't have a 'thing' that makes it stand out, it is just a section of inner London.

FWIW, 5mins is enough. A lot of perception is based on small things. There are a lot of options to get into all the parts of the west end from London, all of them quick. It's simply how it is.

Holloway is like it is because of it's proximity to the suburbs around it, each of which have their own character and high streets. I think this, rather than the proximity to the west end is the main factor.

The physical barriers provide a disconnect in urban continuity, which leaves it feeling, as you say, more like a boundary place than a centralised district. This isn't helped by the building form along those roads not adapting to suit the size of them.

Most of the more identifiable areas around there are so much nicer as a result, and feel more like 'places'.

...were considered shitholes by most people up until a few years ago, and they are in the suburbs. Walthamstow used to be part of Essex until the 60s.

I don't necessarily mean the suburbs anyway. Tottenham is still relatively affordable. Yeah, it's not great round there, but that's life. You can set your sights on the current up-and-coming area and be renting for the rest of your life, or accept that you're not rich and buy something you can afford. I'd like to live in Wimbledon Village, but I can't, so I settle on Colliers Wood and get the bus up there instead. Suits me perfectly.

I bought a house with my thinly-veiled in North London in September last year. Our deposit was just below the bank-charge threshold of £25,000 (profiteering arseholes).

I lived with her parents for four years as we saved. Without this, we would be in a similar sitation as everyone else -- on the rent carousel.

My parents were in a position to help. My Dad is 50 next year, will retire aged 55, and will enjoy three final salary pension schemes. Similary, my partner's aunty banks with Coutts (unsure if that is indicative of wealth).

We were fairly determined to 'achieve' our goal ourselves. I don't know what we would've done if offered the money but are thankful we managed without.

How much are solicitors fees and stuff when buying? Nationwide have got a mortgage offer where I either use a solicitor they recommend, and get "free standard legal & valuation fees", or use another one of my choice and get £250 cashback.